Of course it was the union’s idea. So what? The company agreed to it. And it agreed to it IN EXCHANGE for certain things the company wanted.
It was an agreement. When you make an agreement, you’re both responsible for everything in it.
It’s that kind of commen that let’s your anti-union bias slip. Enough.
Officially neutral. Not really neutral. VW has publicly said many times it wants to work with the union.
But they are not going to, because they support the unionization of this plant. (And if they are pouring billions into plants in Mexico, they’re moving there anyway). I’d say if VW favors the union, it would be a good move to vote yes for the union to help keep VW in Tennessee.
Not really. And I still get pissed about Obama basically trying to discredit those who disagree with him rather than simply debating him. First, Republicans aren’t “blocking” anything, they are advocating. Second, the Republican position has just as much claim to being pro-worker as the Democratic/union position. A non-union plant is simply more competitive and is likely to attract more business. Third, thanks for the unnecessary xenophobia, Mr. President. Classy as ever.
The crime of extortion does, but the word “extort” doesn’t. What these 2 (?) politicians were engaged in sure seems like trying to “wrest or wring” via “intimidation or abuse of authority” to me.
I thought “intimidation” was the most applicable, but:
Because it’s an attempt to influence something the politicians have no power over (a union vote) via something they do have power over (tax incentives). Authorities should confine their activities to spheres where they have lawful power, no?
IMO, better they just stay out of it altogether. But once they offer subsidies, then there is no way to delineate what they are “lawfully” allowed to influence unless the law itself makes that clear.
I’m not comfortable at all with “intimidation”, though, since withholding funds that you needn’t give in the first place would imply too broad a meaning ascribed to that term. Am I being “intimidating” when I decide to not patronize a store for any reason I might have? Is it being “intimidating” if an artists is refused a government subsidy for producing controversial art?
Am I intimidating my son if I give him $20,000 but only if he promises not to use it to buy a motorcycle?
I’d prefer that as well, but it’s not the path that was chosen.
Workers have the right to form or join unions under the National Labor Relations Act. I’m not at all comfortable with the forces of the government trying to intimidate people into not exercising their rights.
You could argue that once a company accepts a tax incentive, they should be expected to accommodate the government’s wishes to some degree…but VW’s employees didn’t accept anything, and weren’t party to any incentives.
To intimidate is to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear. In this case, we have lawmakers trying to deter VW workers from some action (voting to be represented by the UAW) by inducing fear (that their plant will close).
None of these are analogous, because they are all two-party affairs. There are three parties here: the state legislature, VW, and VW workers. It’s VW that’s getting the incentives, but their workers are the ones being intimidated.
I don’t accept the term “intimidate”. Not every attempt to influence people is an act of intimidation. I can see that the pols are trying to influence the outcome, but that comes with the territory when you accept government funds.
One might argue that the workers weren’t the ones to accept government funds, but they chose to work for a company that did. * Caveat emptor.*
So, it really isn’t about Republican favoring business and corporate interests over people, but a stern ethical stand, rigorously applied. Of course, that standard is a daunting one, not all of us can measure up. People weaken, sometimes, and choose to feed a family rather than maintain a strict moral purity.
Republican legislators are not usually burdened with such dreadful choices, and are less inclined to such weaknesses and failings, and thus can be depended upon to make the sort of choices we can all admire. We should all be grateful that we have such men, willing to take the tough stand and to remind of us the golden days gone by, when workers had the correct and proper attitude towards their benefactors.
Perhaps one day the auto workers of Tennessee will enjoy the same paternal protection historically offered to coal miners. One can only hope.
So then if I’m accused of raping a female co-worker but the DA declines to prosecute because he thinks I probably did it but doesn’t think he has enough to convict then I shouldn’t be fired?
Threatening to pull the funds for reasons totally unrelated to the normal offering and granting of such funds, with job losses quite possibly resulting: I’d call that a threat.
Yeah, because workers these days have so many choices. :rolleyes:
Given the way that states and localities routinely woo companies with assistance and tax breaks of various sorts, and given that plenty of big companies are to varying extents contractors with Uncle Sam, I’d be curious to know what percentage of jobs in the U.S. involve working for employers that don’t get any funding or assistance from any government at any level. Would they be all that easy to avoid even in a much better job market?